Freddie Mac Publishes Study of Risk of Affordable Housing Loss Due to Expiring LIHTC Extended Use

person A.J. Johnson today 07/31/2022

Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) has released a study titled "Risk and Impact of LIHTC Properties Exiting the Program: Examining the Risks of Expiring LIHTC Restrictions and the Outcomes of Properties that Exit."

As market rents continue to rise, rental affordability is becoming increasingly important - especially in preserving existing affordable housing. Some in the industry are concerned that units supported by Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) may transition from having restricted, affordable rents to levels that are too expensive for low and even moderate-income households to afford.

The goal of this Freddie Mac study is to provide an overview of the general risk that currently exists in the market and the potential for a high level of lost affordable units.

A key finding from the research is that LIHTC properties that exit the program often remain more affordable than conventional market rate properties that were never subsidized, even if they are not resyndicated. Former LIHTC properties are often transitioning to workforce housing, remaining affordable to tenants that earn below the area median income (AMI).

Here are some of the key findings outlined in the report:

  • 86.8% of LIHTC properties are programmatic, meaning that they are still in the program and remain subject to rent restrictions. However, a growing number of properties will be able to exit the program in the coming years.
  • High opportunity areas have a relatively high share of programmatic LIHTC properties, which, given the elevated rental costs, can be particularly beneficial for these areas.
  • LIHTC properties that have left the program (referred to as non-programmatic) generally have higher rents compared with LIHTC-restricted units, but lower rents compared with conventional market-rate units.
  • Some non-programmatic LIHTC properties increase rents substantially above 60% of the AMI affordable rents, but the majority are still affordable at this income level. The most common path for non-programmatic LIHTC properties is to remain affordable at 60% of AMI, which happens roughly 61% of the time.

Explanation of Risk

Housing researchers generally agree that the U.S. suffers from a lack of affordable housing. The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) estimates that for every 100 renters earning 30% of AMI there are only 36 units available.

The LIHTC program is the federal government’s primary vehicle for providing affordable housing nationwide. The study found that based on the equity financing for LIHTC properties in 2021, most units (84.5%) are priced at 60% of AMI, with the remaining 15.5% targeting either 30%, 40%, or 50% of AMI. This validates what we in the industry have known anecdotally for years - most LIHTC properties operate under the 40/60 minimum set-aside.

Identifying Types of Risk of Properties Exiting the LIHTC Program

Between years 1-15 of the initial LIHTC compliance period, the risk of affordability loss is low since there is typically no legal way to raise rents above what is permitted at the time of LIHTC allocation. However, after year 15, several risks emerge that could lead to LIHTC properties leaving the program.

The Qualified Contract (QC)

Beginning as early as the end of year 14, LIHTC property owners typically may inform the applicable state Housing Finance Agency (HFA) of their intent to sell the property pursuant to the QC process.8

• If a buyer is not found by the HFA within one year, the owner can convert the property to market rate rents after a three-year "decontrol" period.

It should be noted that this option is very unpopular with the states and Congress is considering doing away with the option.

Expiration of Affordability Restrictions

Depending on the year a property is placed in service, affordability restrictions will generally lapse after 30 years. After this period, property owners can raise rents without the risk of credit recapture by the IRS or, in some cases, legal action by the HFA.

• Some states require a longer extended use period, and some property owners agree to more stringent restrictions in order to be more competitive in the allocation process. In this way, the 30-year rule is not universal.

Foreclosure

Historically, LIHTC properties have very low delinquency and default rates. However, a LIHTC property could still suffer from financial and operational problems that give a lender the right to foreclose. This can happen even before year 15.

Upon foreclosure and transfer of ownership, the Land Use Restriction Agreement that includes rent restrictions typically will terminate, permitting the new owner to convert the property to market rent after a three-year decontrol period.

The study notes that leaving the LIHTC program via foreclosure is very rare.

If LIHTC properties leave the program, the degree of affordability loss can only truly be measured on a case-by-case basis since property owners will not necessarily raise rents, especially if property or local market conditions can’t support the increase.

Snapshot of Current Non-Programmatic LIHTC Properties

The study identified 40,296 multifamily properties in the entire history of the LIHTC program. Of these, 34,975 are programmatic, which means they currently restrict rents based on local income in accordance with LIHTC requirements. The remaining 5,321 properties have exited the LIHTC program and are no longer believed to have LIHTC restricted rents.

What Factors Increase or Decrease the Propensity of a Property to Exit the LIHTC Program?

  • Ownership Type: LIHTC properties with nonprofit owners are less likely to leave the program.
  • Year Placed-in-Service: Older LIHTC properties are substantially more likely to exit the program. Over 90% of properties placed in service prior to 1990 are believed to be non-programmatic. In 1990, the program length switched from 15 years to 30 years. However, beginning in 2020, the 30-year extended use period is expiring for a number of LIHTC properties, and this is a concern.
  • Property Size: Smaller properties are more likely to have exited the program. The average property size of a non-programmatic property that was placed in service prior to 1990 is 43 units, compared with 73 units for programmatic properties. The trend changes for properties in service after 1990, where programmatic properties tend to be smaller than non-programmatic properties.
  • Resyndication History: The rate for resyndicated programmatic properties is high — 96.2% of properties that have resyndicated (i.e., obtained a new allocation of credits) remain programmatic.
  • The State: Some states will mandate or incentivize extended use periods longer than the 15-year federal minimum. The study has identified 11 states for which this is true, with extended use periods ranging from 18 years to 99 years.  These increased restrictions appear to decrease the rate of non-programmatic properties. Therefore, LIHTC properties in states with longer extended use periods will generally correlate with a lower risk of near-term exit. Following are the states the study identified with extended use periods longer than 15 years:
    • Alabama      -       20 years
    • California -       40 years
    • Connecticut -     25 years
    • Hawaii       -       30 years
    • Kentucky    -       18 years
    • Maine         -       30 years (was 75 years until 2013)
    • New Hampshire-   45 years (was 84 years prior to 2020)
    • Oregon       -       45 years
    • Pennsylvania-    25 years (was 20 years prior to 2021)
    • Utah           -       35 years (was 84 years prior to 2013)
    • Vermont      -       84 years
  • Local Housing Market: There is the concern of an increased risk of losing LIHTC restricted properties that may be able to receive a premium due to local housing conditions. This is especially the case in highly sought-after neighborhoods. Interestingly, non-programmatic properties are in lower-income areas compared with programmatic properties. Given the elevated rental costs, high opportunity areas especially benefit from affordable housing, so it’s encouraging that an outsized portion of LIHTC units are still in the program.
  • Rent Level - Market vs. Max LIHTC: As market rate rents increased, fewer conventional market rate properties remain affordable at 60% of AMI and below, creating a gap between maximum restricted LIHTC rents and conventional rents. If market rent is substantially higher than maximum LIHTC rent, this could entice property owners to reposition a LIHTC property as market rate either at the expiration of affordability restrictions or before expiration via a QC.

What Happens to LIHTC Properties that Become Market Rate?

Once a LIHTC property exits the program, rents at the property are no longer subject to restrictions, provided the property does not receive other subsidies and is not subject to other restrictive covenants. The Study uses seven metro areas to determine the answer to what is happening to exiting LIHTC properties. These are Dallas, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Orlando, Phoenix, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. These locations were chosen because they are geographically and culturally diverse and had relatively large non-programmatic populations. Non-programmatic properties with fewer than 50 units were not considered.

Here are the major findings:

  • Non-programmatic LIHTC properties are considerably older than other market-rate properties.
  • Non-programmatic LIHTC properties generally have lower property ratings and lower location ratings compared with conventional market rate properties.
  • Rents in non-programmatic LIHTC properties tend to be lower than market-rate units that were never in the LIHTC program. This is true for all seven metro areas studied. The largest rent gap was in Dallas, where non-programmatic LIHTC rents are 26.5% lower than market rate, while the smallest gap was in Phoenix, where non-programmatic rents are only 3.0% lower.
  • The analysis shows that non-programmatic LIHTC rents are still materially below the rest of the market.
  • In general, many non-programmatic LIHTC properties continue to provide affordable housing. Rent levels across these metro areas for non-programmatic properties are affordable, on average, to tenants making 61% of AMI.

Opportunity for Workforce Housing

Non-programmatic LIHTC represents a loss of the strictly affordable stock, which is the segment of the market with the most need, but it benefits another market segment: workforce housing.

Workforce housing typically serves renters who make below the median income for the area but are not eligible for subsidies.

Overall, programmatic LIHTC units are generally the most affordable and guarantee they will remain affordable, followed by non-programmatic LIHTC.

Loss of Deeply Affordable Units

The loss of affordable LIHTC units can still be very problematic. This is especially true for deeply affordable units at 30% AMI. There are no units in the non-programmatic dataset that are affordable at 30% AMI, while only 0.1% of conventional market-rate units are affordable at this level. Since market rents can almost never support rents at this level, the conversion of a LIHTC property to market rate typically means the loss of deeply affordable units at 30% AMI.

Conclusion of the Study

Rent and income restrictions for LIHTC properties generally persist for at least 30 years, but as the program ages and more properties near the end of their compliance periods, the risk of affordability loss increases. Certain factors are correlated with the risk of ending LIHTC rent restrictions such as ownership type, property characteristics, and local housing market. The decision to convert properties to market rate, however, ultimately lies with the property owner who is motivated by a variety of factors.

Fortunately, the propensity for LIHTC properties to move to a rent level on par with market rate is low. Although rent for units among non-programmatic LIHTC properties is typically higher than programmatic LIHTC rents, they are still materially below conventional market-rate rent levels. In this way, LIHTC properties leaving the program play a role in a community’s overall rental housing strategy by adding to the workforce housing stock, thus increasing affordable access to households that may not qualify for subsidized housing.

However, several risks remain, particularly around the loss of deeply affordable units and the risk of rents increasing due to market conditions or rehabilitation of the property. Available public subsidies can best benefit those properties that provide deeply affordable housing as well as affordable housing in areas without a lot of access to similar-priced housing. Understanding the risks associated with the loss of affordable units from LIHTC properties can help inform what may happen as more properties exit the program and provide strategies to help preserve affordable housing to help those tenants most at risk of losing affordable housing.

Latest Articles

The Rural Development Service Announces HOTMA Implementation

A memorandum from Joaquin Altoro, the Administrator of the Rural Housing Service (RHS), addressed to Multifamily Housing Owners and Management Agents Multifamily Housing Partners, has explained how HOTMA will be implemented by the Rural Housing Service (RHS). All housing programs administered by RHS are affected, but the primary impact will be felt in the Section 515 Program.  The memorandum concerns an Administrator Exception related to implementing the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA).   The memorandum explains that the Housing Act of 1949, which governs the RHS, requires the calculation of a tenant's annual and adjusted household income to be based on the definition provided by the Housing Act of 1937. As a result, RHS must determine income for housing purposes per 24 CFR 5.609, the section of the Code of Federal Regulations governing HUD housing programs.  However, HOTMA directed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to issue a rule changing the income calculation requirements.  HUD published a Final Rule updating 24 CFR 5.609 on February 14, 2023, effective January 1, 2024.  The memorandum states that the Housing Act of 1949 does not incorporate the updates found in 24 CFR 5.609(c), and therefore, the RHS and Multifamily Housing (MFH) will not implement 24 CFR 5.609(c).   The memorandum further explains that under the authority granted in 7 CFR 3560.8, a regulatory waiver has been approved to exclude 24 CFR 5.609(c) from Rural Development's annual income calculation requirements.  The waiver is effective retroactive to January 1, 2024.  The memorandum lists the specific requirements that RD will not implement, including interim tenant income reexaminations where adjusted income is estimated to increase or decrease by 10% or more, using other programs' income determinations, and allowing de minimis errors resulting in $30 or less per month to remain in compliance. Concerning recertifications, tenants at RD properties must be income recertified at least annually and whenever household income changes by $100 or more per month or $50 or more per month if the tenant requests such a change be made. This requirement remains in place.  The Administrator's Exception will be in effect until 7 CFR 3560.153(a) is updated to refer only to 24 CFR 5.609(a) and (b). RD will apply all HOTMA changes regarding the definition of annual income, including all revised inclusions and exclusions from income.    The memorandum also mentions that full compliance with HOTMA is mandatory, effective January 1, 2025, and RD is establishing further guidance and updating handbooks and forms to incorporate the changes.   RD encourages owners and management agents to discuss the implementation with software providers to ensure seamless data transmission.   The memorandum concludes by stating that RD will not penalize owners for HOTMA-related tenant file issues during RD Supervisory reviews conducted before January 1, 2025. 

A. J. Johnson Partners with Mid-Atlantic AHMA for Affordable Housing Training - May 2024

During May 2024, A. J. Johnson will partner with the Mid-Atlantic Affordable Housing Management Association for training sessions for real estate professionals, particularly those in the affordable multifamily housing field. The sessions will be presented via live webinars.  The following sessions will be presented: May 8: Intermediate LIHTC Compliance  - Designed for more experienced managers, supervisory personnel, investment asset managers, and compliance specialists, this practical program expands on the information covered in the Basics of Tax Credit Site Management. A more in-depth discussion of income verification issues is included, as well as a discussion of minimum set-aside issues (including the Average Income Minimum Set-Aside), optional fees, and use of common areas. The Available Unit Rule is covered in great detail, as are the requirements for units occupied by students. Attendees will also learn the requirements for setting rents at a tax-credit property. This course contains some practice problems but is more discussion-oriented than the Basic course. A calculator is required for this course. May 14: Basic LIHTC Compliance - This training is designed primarily for site managers and investment asset managers responsible for site-related asset management and is especially beneficial to those managers who are relatively inexperienced in the tax credit program. It covers all aspects of credit related to on-site management, including the applicant interview process, determining resident eligibility (income and student issues), handling recertification, setting rents - including a full review of utility allowance requirements - lease issues, and the importance of maintaining the property. The training includes problems and questions to ensure students fully comprehend the material. May 16: The Verification and Calculation of Income and Assets on Affordable Housing Properties - The live webinar provides concentrated instruction on the required methodology for calculating and verifying income and determining the value of assets and income generated by those assets. The first section of the course involves a comprehensive discussion of employment income, military pay, pensions/social security, self-employment income, and child support. It concludes with workshop problems designed to test what the student has learned during the discussion phase of the training and serve to reinforce HUD-required techniques for determining income. The second component of the training focuses on a detailed discussion of requirements related to determining asset value and income. It applies to all federal housing programs, including the low-income housing tax credit, tax-exempt bonds, Section 8, Section 515, and HOME. Multiple types of assets are covered, both in terms of what constitutes an asset and how they must be verified. This section also concludes with problems designed to test the student s understanding of the basic requirements relative to assets. These sessions are part of a year-long collaboration between A. J. Johnson and MidAtlantic AHMA designed to provide affordable housing professionals with the knowledge needed to effectively manage the complex requirements of the various agencies overseeing these programs, ensuring long-term success in the field. Persons interested in any (or all) training sessions may register by visiting either www.ajjcs.net or https://www.mid-atlanticahma.org.

HUD Publishes 2024 Income Limits

On April 1, 2024, HUD published the 2024 income limits for HUD programs as well as for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Tax-Exempt Bond programs. The limits are effective on April 1, 2024.  The limits for the LIHTC and Bond projects are published separately from the limits for HUD programs. LIHTC and Bond properties use the Multifamily Tax Subsidy Project (MTSP) limits and are held harmless from income limit (and therefore rent) reductions. These properties may use the highest income limits used for resident qualification and rent calculation purposes since the project has been in service. HUD program income limits are not held harmless. HUD publishes the 50% and 60% MTSP limits in the same table with the Average Income (AI) limits. AI limits are set at 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80%. Projects in service prior to 2009 may use the HERA Special Income Limits in areas where HUD has published such limits. Projects placed in service after 2008 may not use the HERA Special Limits. Projects in rural areas that are not financed by tax-exempt bonds may use the higher of the MTSP limits or the National Non-Metropolitan Income Limits (NNMIL). According to HUD, the non-metropolitan median income has gone up approximately .78% from 2023 to 2024. Owners of LIHTC projects may rely on the 2023 income limits for all purposes for 45 days after the effective date of the newly issued limits. This 45-day period ends on May 16, 2024. The limits for HUD programs may be found at www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html. The limits for LIHTC and Bond programs may be found at www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/mtsp.html.

HUD Expands List of Federally Mandated Income Exclusions

On January 31, 2024, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published an updated list of income excluded for HUD-assisted housing programs. Since the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) must follow HUD rules regarding income determination, these exclusions also apply to the LIHTC program. Four new income exclusions were added, and existing exclusions were modified to specifically identify which sources of income are excluded from income calculations and asset determinations. This is the first comprehensive update of income exclusions since May 2014, and it incorporates the Housing Opportunities Through Modernization Act (HOTMA) exclusions. New Income Exclusions HUD has added four types of income that will no longer be counted for affordable housing program purposes. These include specific tax refunds, allowances for children of some veterans, distributions from ABLE accounts, and emergency rental assistance payments. Tax Refunds: The amount of any refund (or advance payment for a refundable credit) issued under the Internal Revenue Code is excluded from income. Such refunds are also excluded from assets for 12 months after being received. Children of Certain Service Members: Allowances paid to children of certain Thailand service veterans born with spina bifida are excluded from income and assets. This is in addition to any allowances paid to children of Vietnam veterans born with spina bifida, children of women Vietnam veterans born with certain birth defects, and children of certain Korean service veterans born with spina bifida. ABLE Account Distributions: Any amount in an Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) account is excluded from income and assets. This includes the value of distributions from and certain contributions to ABLE accounts. Emergency Rental Payments: Payments received by a household under the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, which was part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, are excluded from income and assets. Modifications to Existing Exclusions In addition to adding new income exclusions, HUD is modifying existing exclusions. AmericorpsVISTA payments: In the past, payments to volunteers under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 were always excluded. Now, such payments are included in income if the CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service determines that the value of the payments, adjusted to reflect the number of hours served by volunteers, is equal to or greater than the federal or state/local minimum wage, whichever is greater. Tribal Trust Settlements: The first $2,000 of per capita payments are excluded unless the per capita payments exceed the amount of the original Tribal Trust Settlement. NAHASDA Benefits: The change more accurately captures the language in the United States Code that describes the exclusion of programs under the Native American Housing Assistance & Self-Determination Act. Individual Development Accounts (IDA): Any amounts in an IDA are excluded from assets, and any assistance, benefit, or amounts earned by or provided to an individual development account are excluded from income. This exclusion was updated to clarify that an IDA is excluded from assets, and any IDA benefits are also excluded from income. This program was defunded in 2017, so the exclusion is moot. It is important to note that HUD s updated list of federally mandated income exclusions is not a comprehensive list of all exclusions from income. Following are the types of income that are expressly excluded by federal law. Other income exclusions, as listed in various HUD Handbooks and Notice H 2023-10/PIH 2023-27, remain applicable. Also note that the exclusions listed below apply to income only, except where noted concerning assets. The value of the allotment provided to an eligible household under the Food Stamp Act of 1977. This exclusion also applies to assets. Payments, including for supportive services and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, for volunteers under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 are excluded from income except that the exclusion shall not apply in the case of such payments when the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service appointed under 42 U.S.C. 12651c determines that the value of all such payments, adjusted to reflect the number of hours such volunteers are serving, is equivalent to or greater than the minimum wage then in effect under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 or the minimum wage, under the laws of the State where such volunteers are serving, whichever is the greater. This exclusion also applies to assets. Certain payments received under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This exclusion also applies to assets. Income derived from certain submarginal land of the United States is held in trust for certain Indian tribes. This exclusion also applies to assets. Payments or allowances made under the Department of Health and Human Services Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This exclusion also applies to assets. Income derived from the disposition of funds to the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians. This exclusion also applies to assets. The first $2,000 of per capita shares received from judgment funds awarded by the National Indian Gaming Commission or the U.S. Claims Court, the interests of individual Indians in trust or restricted lands, and the first $2,000 per year of income received by individual Indians from funds derived in interests held in such trust or restricted lands. This exclusion does not include proceeds of gaming operations regulated by the Commission. This exclusion also applies to assets. Amounts of student financial assistance funded under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, including awards under Federal work-study programs or the Bureau of Indian Affairs student assistance programs. For Section 8 programs only, any financial assistance in excess of amounts received by an individual for tuition and any other required fees and charges under the Higher Education Act of 1965 from private sources or an institution of higher education (as defined under the Higher Education Act of 1965), shall not be considered income to that individual if the individual is over the age of 23 with dependent children. Payments received from programs funded under Title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965. Payments received on or after January 1, 1989, from the Agent Orange Settlement Fund or any other fund established pursuant to the settlement in Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, M.D.L. No 381 (E.D.N.Y.). This exclusion also applies to assets. Payments received under the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980. This exclusion also applies to assets. The value of any childcare provided or arranged (or any amount received as payment for such care or reimbursement for costs incurred for such care) under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990. Earned income tax credit (EITC) refund payments received on or after January 1, 1991, for programs administered under the United States Housing Act of 1937, title V of the Housing Act of 1949, Section 101 of the Housing & Urban Development Act of 1965, and Sections 221(d)(3), 235, and 236 of the National Housing Act. This exclusion also applies to assets. Note - while this income exclusion addresses EITC refund payments for certain HUD programs, the exclusion in 26 U.S.C. 6409 excludes Federal tax refunds more broadly for any Federal program or under any State or local program financed in whole or in part with Federal funds. The amount of any refund (or advance payment for a refundable credit) issued under the Internal Revenue Code is excluded from income and assets for 12 months after receipt. Payments by the Indian Claims Commission to the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation or the Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation. This exclusion also applies to assets. Allowances, earnings, and payments to AmeriCorps participants under the National and Community Service Act of 1990. Any allowance paid to children of Vietnam veterans born with spina bifida, children of women Vietnam veterans born with certain birth defects, and children of certain Korean and Thailand service veterans born with spina bifida. This exclusion also applies to assets. Any amount of crime victim compensation that provides medical or other assistance (or payment or reimbursement of the cost of such assistance) under the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 received through a crime victim assistance program, unless the total amount of assistance that the applicant receives from all such programs is sufficient to fully compensate the applicant for losses suffered as a result of the crime. This exclusion also applies to assets. Allowances, earnings, and payments to individuals participating in programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1988, reauthorized as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014. Any amount received under the Richard B. Russell School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, including reduced-price lunches and food under the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). This exclusion also applies to assets. Payments, funds, or distributions authorized, established, or directed by the Seneca Nation Settlement Act of 1990. This exclusion also applies to assets. Payments from any deferred U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs disability benefits that are received in a lump sum or in prospective monthly payments. Any amounts (i) not received by the family, (ii) that would be eligible for exclusion under 42 U.S.C. 1382b(a)(7), and (iii) received for service-connected disability under 38 U.S.C. chapter 11 or dependency and indemnity compensation under 38 U.S.C. chapter 13 as provided by an amendment by the Indian Veterans Housing Opportunity Act of 2010 to the definition of income applicable to programs under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA). A lump sum or a periodic payment received by an individual Indian under the class action settlement agreement in the case titled Elouise Cobell et al. v. Ken Salazar et al., 816 F. Supp.2d 10 (Oct 5, 2011, D.D.C), for one year from the time of receipt of that payment as provided in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. This exclusion also applies to assets. As provided by the Assets for Independence Act, as amended, any amounts in an "individual development account are excluded from assets, and any assistance, benefit, or amounts earned by or provided to the individual development account are excluded from income. An Individual Development Account (IDA) is a special bank account that assists a family in saving for education, purchasing a first home, or starting a business. To enroll in the program, participants must (1) Have a paying job, (2) earn less than 200% of the federal poverty level, and (3) not have more than $10,000 in assets, excluding one car and one home. The owner of the account contributes money from their job to the account. The contributions are matched from the State TANF program or a special state fund. These additional funds are excluded from income or assets. Per capita payments made from the proceeds of Indian Tribal Trust Settlements listed in IRS Notice 2013-1 and 2013-55 must be excluded from annual income unless the per capita payments exceed the amount of the original Tribal Trust Settlement proceeds and are made from a Tribe s private bank account in which the Tribe has deposited the settlement proceeds. Such amounts received in excess of the Tribal Trust Settlement are included in the gross income of the members of the Tribe receiving the per capita payments as described in IRS Notice 2013-1. The first $2,000 of per capita payments are also excluded from assets unless the per capita payments exceed the amount of the original Tribal Trust Settlement proceeds and are made from a Tribe s private bank account in which the Tribe has deposited the settlement proceeds. Individuals and families receiving federal assistance for a major disaster or emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and comparable disaster assistance that is provided by States, local governments, and disaster assistance organizations. This exclusion also applies to assets. Any amount in an Achieving Better Life Experience (ABLE) account, distributions from, and certain contributions to an ABLE account established under the ABLE Act of 2014, as described in Notice PIH 2019-09/H 2019-06 or a subsequent or superseding notice. This exclusion also applies to assets. Assistance received by a household under the Emergency Rental Assistance Program under the Consolidated Appropriates Act of 2021 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. While all these exclusions will be reflected in a future update of HUD Handbook 4350.3, that update is not yet available. Therefore, owners and managers of properties subject to HUD income and asset exclusions should keep this list handy.

Want news delivered to your inbox?

Subscribe to our news articles to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.